Goodness Without God is Good Enough: William Lane Craig vs Paul Kurtz 7/7

[Diachi26]

Man, this shows how deaf some atheist are. For once can any atheist ADDRESS his claim instead of coming up with claims that are irrelevant to the conversation? I've seen so many atheist in the debates and in the comments fail to address the claims he has stet up and if you think I'm wrong why don't you debate Dr. Craig. If he's so easily refuted then why hasn't he been refuted in a debate yet? Stop hiding behind your computer copying and pasting off websites and be the "hero" for the atheist.

[MrNoelJMIS]

WOW...I'm so impressed.

[verboo799]

Craigs face at 3.35 too funnnyyyyy, poor craig looool

[jefersontorres]

Those who desagree with Dr. Craig should debate him.

[jefersontorres]

3:30 - 3:50: Well, maybe nor Freud neither Nietzsche would say that...

[SuperMarco7]

no QandA?

[Newtonip]

Dr. Craig's whole argument that If there is a god then it follows that there is such a thing as objective morality is wrong.

An all powerful god without morals could create a universe and then let things run themselves without said god's intervention (leaving things free/undecided, being all powerful includes being able to do that since it includes everything) with eventual humans evolving with their morality.

[poisionarrowclean]

Where is the rest of this debate? There is suppose to be a Q&A part.

[efeey]

These amteur athiests are really no match for the seasoned christian debaters. WLC agreed with Kurtz with his first sentence and yet he continued to affirm that precisely that the whole freakin debate dance around the questions regarding the origins of morality. Utter and complete bullcrap. I think Dawkins and Dennet are also utterly tragic on this topic. The only athiest worth listening to is hitchens and again he is simply a linguist who twists things around to show offense to get out of it.

[ElasticGiraffe]

Kurtz's sloppiness and unwillingness to stay on topic is embarrassing. Craig wiped the floor with this amateur atheist masquerading as a philosopher.

For ONCE, I would like to see someone actually ADDRESS Craig's arguments in a debate. Is that too much to ask?

[Newtonip]

@ElasticGiraffe

The topic of the debate was ambiguous: "Is goodness without God good enough?"

Craig interpreted that as meaning "Can you have objective morality without a God?" which is quite a leap.

Krutz interpreted it as meaning "Can you develop a sense of morality (being defined here as what is its generally agreed definition) without belief in God".

Both of them should have taken a step back and agreed on what the topic was.

[movingdragons]

@Newtonip Absolutely right. This has been the problem with these debate the whole time.

[4um360]

"Lions and other animals eat their offspring...why is it objectively moraly wrong for homo-sapiens to do the same?" 6:09-6:19. Does Graig know what the god of the Bible says about cannibalism? It's in Jeremiah 19:19, and there are more examples.

[4um360]

"...love your children, rather than torture them" 5:33-5:38. Why then stone them to death? It's in Deuteronomy 21:18-21.

[lukeism2]

i see alot of posts saying this guy misses the point... um, maybe the topic of the debate should have been called can you be good if you don't believe in god?.. and of course you can.. craig has this strange idea that atheism leads to nothingness/nihilism, i seriously think if craig found out there was no god, he'd probably kill himself.

[DyingStar03]

its amazing how Kurtz keeps saying atheists can be moral without God, when Craig already admitted that in the beginning of the debate. How about addressing the topic and stop trying to argue some point that Craig didnt make. Typical atheist, offer up red herrings and then dance around the argument beacause u cant refute it.

[projectptube]

i have yet to see a theist win a debate. how can believers be so dumb?

[HerrVonManstein]

@projectptube I agree. how can anyone think that pathetic apologist w.craig has anything to offer apart from his debating skills which are far from sufficient to make up for his poor arguments and sheer hypocrisy. the ship of christianity has long sunken and may craig join its reckage if he holds it so dear

[MrMohjong]

@HerrVonManstein You better watch it before you get mugged by the craig fans boys lol

[saintpine]

There is no objective morality.

There is no religion that can guarantee an objective morality, no religious group would ever accept another god law above their own, so like Kurz said "which Theism ?"

In the end our morality will always be subjective, it will change in time and place and will be a continuous battle.

The Universal Declaration of Human Rights is the nearest we can get to a quasi "objective" morality, and it's religion that obstructs it from becoming a universal law.

[Mathenaut]

Craig's arguments imply his god as an established fact to build off of, as opposed to something that needs to be verified to begin with.

This leaves something extremely lacking for anyone that doesn't make the same assumption about god.

In the end, Craig doesn't establish why his god is necessary to be moral, or to have any concept of morality.

[collins1188]

Craig won this debate SO CLEARLY... humanism is completely intellectually bankrupt, like he said.

[collins1188]

Kurtz REFUSES to listen to Craig.... its so funny. Craig says he agrees that an atheist can be moral yet Kurtz CONTINUES to argue this rediculous strawman... Kurtz is crashing and burning.

[Imirror1]

Question:are this guy lane craig a racist?I mean ,way he always compares a bad thing with people with red hair? Think about it.

[snackynak]

because gingers are subhuman. Genetic freaks of nature that are forced to live in the shadows of society, least the sun melts their skin.

[bluefish704]

@Imirror1 hahaha!!!

[wild112233]

Hey, where is the Q&A? From other online videos, I know that Craig typically gets whipped in the Q&A where he is forced to answer direct questions.

Given that these videos were posted by "Christianjr4", one can see s/he did not want us all to see Craig being whipped into shape :-) Quite the moral christian behavior one can expect here.

[magneticnorth03]

How many times does WLC have to say that "Belief" dosent matter, and is infact NOT what the debate is about.

Yet, STILL, Kurtz keeps bringing up the burden of "belief in God," when infact,

1.) Belief in God doesnt matter because Morality is Intrinsic.

&

2.) The question of "Belief" as a determinant of morality is NOT the question of the debate.

The question of the debate IS:

"Is God the basis for morality?"

OR

"Is there a basis for morality WITHOUT God?"

To which Kurtz has NO answer...

[meangreen4321]

@magneticnorth03

The question of the debate is not "is there a basis for morality without God?", but WLC chose to make this his focal point, since that is his strongest argument. He likely knew that Kurtz would defend the basic argument that people can be moral without God.

I think what Kurtz is trying to say, is that no theistic belief provides an adequate objective moral basis and that invoking a "torturer god" doesn't really solve anything.

[magneticnorth03]

@Meangreen

Actually, the topic of the debate is, as i said it was.

Read the title, it states, "Goodness without God is Good enough."

But to make that statement a question, (which is what the debate hinges on, a question), then the debate becomes what i said it was.

"Is there a basis for morality without out God,"

Or

"Is God the basis for morality."

Obviously, each side of the statement makes a claim, however Kurtz attacks belief over and over, when that is obviously NOT the question.

[meangreen4321]

@magneticnorth03

Okay, I get your point. However, the most obvious rendition is: Is goodness without God good enough? A somewhat ambiguous question, to say the least. Kurtz's opening statement shows how he interpreted it when he said in response, "...indeed for some, it is better."

In other words, he interprets the question as: "Is a God necessary for a moral basis?"

WLC simply focussed on the moral basis because it provided a unique angle and a strong argument.

[soultorment27]

@magneticnorth03:

is an action morally good because god says so, or does god say so because it's morally good?

how does god provide any foundation for morality?

[magneticnorth03]

@soultorment

I believe your making the same mistake Kurtz when he assumes "HOW" God dishes out Morality. Kurtz assumes Morality comes with "Belief," or comes as through some acceptence or order from God, and then of course he assumes it must come through some form of religion as well, to which he asks, "Which one?"

Similarily, you ask, how is an action defined by God as morally good, to which i would reply, wrong question.

Morality does not come from God through magic books or religions.

[soultorment27]

@magneticnorth03:

then HOW does morality come from god? do you have an answer? you cannot just make such an assertion without providing supporting justification...

[soultorment27]

@magneticnorth03:

if moral actions are good because god says so, then the implications are that might makes right, and therefore god cannot himself be 'all good'.

if morality is independent from god, then god is not necessary.

also the implications of an eternal afterlife are this current life has only instrumental value & lacks any intrinsic value, & is therefore meaningless. but however, if this life is the only life there is, then this life has intrinsic value, & thus more meaning.

[magneticnorth03]

@ Soultorment

Might is definitely not right, and it is immoral to believe so.

If morality is independent from God, there is no need for him: Of course.

As to your last point, i completely disagree.

As far as i can tell, this life would carry NO intrinsic value, except to survive and carry on ones genes under a purely atheistic/materialistic/reduct­ionist world view.

If you keep reducing everything around you, "intrinsic value" becomes nothing more then an abstraction, post modern chatter

[soultorment27]

@magneticnorth03:

if you concede that morality is what god commands it to be, then how is that NOT 'might makes right'? this makes such commands arbitrary based upon god's will.

also, if morality is whatever god says it is, then the implications of such are that god is not necessarily good either. because then to say god is good, is really only to say that god follows his own arbitrary commands. & consequentially an 'evil' god would be indistinguishable from a 'good' god...

[magneticnorth03]

I dont know how many more times i would have to say that morality is NOT what God COMMANDS it to be, before you started to listen.

You or Kurtz for that matter.

As to your second post.

Life is not merely a test, life is the most important thing we have, because of the implications it makes on things of eternal value.

However, if you keep reduce your line of logic about the world, then on a long enough time line, you will completely run out of a BASIS for life having any meaning at all.

[soultorment27]

@magneticnorth03

if actions are morally good NOT because god commands them, but rather, god commands them BECAUSE they're morally good then that means that morality is NOT necessary for god.

...further implications of this are that moral standards are independent of god. & therefore god is bound by such moral standards...consequentially god is not sovereign.

& thus god makes no difference for morality at all because god is not the source of such...

[soultorment27]

@magneticnorth03

if you ARENT claiming that morality comes from what god commands, then what ARE you claiming? do you even know?

[magneticnorth03]

Of course i know what i claim, your problem is that you assume you know as well...

[soultorment27]

@magneticnorth03

if you concede that morality is NOT what god commands, then you implicitly adopt the view that god is not the source of morality...morality and god come apart.

therefore, the existence of god is NOT necessary for morality.

[magneticnorth03]

I do conced that morality is NOT what God COMMANDS.

But it is really not a concession.

If you are finally understanding that i have been saying that this entire time, its no concession on my part, but simply a realization of what i have been saying on your part.

The problem then becomes, the false dicotomy you put your new found realization into.

It is NOT, either God commands morality.

Or

God is seperate from it.

He can be intrinsically apart of it, without having to command it

[soultorment27]

@magneticnorth03:

yes i may have initially misunderstood you, i apologize. but even if what you say is true and god is PART of morality, similiar problems still arise regardless...idk how to reconcile any such version...

for example: to say god is part of moral standards is to say that god is bound by those moral standards. thus this implies the moral standards are sovereign over god...

[magneticnorth03]

No its no problem, that sort of thing happens alot.

I believe, God is apart of all things. But i do not of course believe he is bound by their properties.

The contrary to that would be something akin to this...

Because a bead of sweat falls off The Carpenter's brow and onto the Uncarved Block, and therefore infuses itself into the Block, the Carpenter therefore is also bound by the physical properties that make up the Wood....

On the contrary, i would humbly say.

[soultorment27]

@magneticnorth03

how did morality come to exist? i assume god made everything in the universe, did he not make morality as well?

[soultorment27]

@magneticnorth03:

if you believe this life is merely only a 'test' to prepare for the 'real' life, then the implications of that is this current life has only instrumental, extrinsic value. so it is your worldview that views this current life as less significant, because this life then is nothing more than a warmup life for the real life to come...

but i believe this is the ONLY life there is. so yes this life has intrinsic value, its not just a 'test' or a warmup for some eternal future

[Forkroute]

Paul Kurtz is disappointing .

[jtbovis]

As much as I love Kurtz, and as much as I share his position and disagree fundamentally with Craig's position (for reasons that would require more than a 500 character comment box to articulate :P), I concede that Craig is the more skillful debater and performed better in this encounter.

Losing a debate, however, does not make someone's position invalid or false, it could be due to a range of other factors, one of which being poor debating skills :P

[laurajhamilton0]

I agree. This debate was frustrating. I saw so many holes in Craig's arguments that Kurtz never touched. He didn't, for example, really bring up the position that humanist morality is based on a consequentialist foundation rather than a godly one. That our morality does not come from a god(s), but rather from consistent observations on how our actions affect the world and people around us. MORAL actions are those which produce the most positive possible result in a given situation. Bah. Oh well.

[2000deg]

I dont think that this is a stable basis for morality. Do you know the butterfly effect? This problems hits the consequentialist morality.

Furthermore it still doesnt not account for the fundamental problem: why is the most positive possible result even desireable for an individual if it is the worst possible result for one self. E.g. a fireman sacrificing his life to save that of a child.

If there is no final judgement then everything is permitted.

[laurajhamilton0]

First of all, the butterfly effect does not play into this. I was being quite general in my statement before. In fact, the moral act is the act that produces the most positive FORSEEABLE result. If you could look into the future to see how the results of your actions would pan out, morality would not need to exist at all. We should do what seems like it will create the most positive result without actually knowing.

[laurajhamilton0]

And no. Everything is not simply permitted because there is no God. We impose rule upon ourselves. We know, for example that it is "wrong" to steal because we would not want to be stolen from. Likewise, it is not a productive means of acquiring wealth. One person benefits, others lose. Simple. Furthermore, Altruism is NOT always the morally correct thing. It is something that we in a resource-rich society can flatter ourselves with. I'll continue with this scenario:

[2000deg]

"We impose rule upon ourselves. We know, for example that it is "wrong" to steal because we would not want to be stolen from. "

This doesnt answer the problem. Why is this right: "And as ye would that men should do to you, do ye also to them likewise." ? And why should i obey this rule, especially if i get disadvantaged by this? We have to acknowledge that there things that are right in themselves, independet of us.

Without objective moral values, your lost in moral relativism.

[laurajhamilton0]

Jones and Green are stranded in the Arctic. Jones has a coat. Green doesn't. Green is going to die. Is it morally correc for Jones to give Green his coat? Maybe. But lets complicate things. Jones is a life-saving surgeon. Green is a common theif and drug user. Is the altruistic act of giving up the coat STILL a moral imperative? Morality can change from religion to religion, scenario to scenario. It is not so simple, in my opinion, as infallable rules from different Gods with conflicting ideas.

[2000deg]

Such a cruel death is absolutely not appropriate for theft and drug abuse.

So we should help him and use this situation to show him the way to christ, so that he sees and repents his sins, making him a better man.

[meangreen4321]

@2000deg

"...show him the way to christ, so that he sees and repents his sins, making him a better man. "

Correction: ...making him a perfect man. Jesus isn't said to have paid for 'some' but 'all' his sins. Now, his lack of morality in life truly didn't matter.

[awesomewelles90]

I find it morally objectionable that you would presume to judge between the two and say that one deserves to die more than the other. They're both humans. The value of human life cannot be coldly calculated as you imply. Atheistic morality is a joke. I have yet to find any real argument for objective moral values in atheism.

[meangreen4321]

@awesomewelles90

"Atheistic morality is a joke."

Isn't it logical that an ambitious, skilled, benevolent person is ultimately more valuable to society than a social wreck? Thankfully humans have empathy for their condition and faith in their potential for rehabilitation.

Don't you mean secular humanist morality? Thomas Paine was not Atheist, but an apparent Deist, as well as prominent Secularist.

[Lightmane321]

@laurajhamilton0

The morally correct thing to do is for both men to do everything in their power to keep each other alive because to do otherwise would be selfish and immoral, but if atheism is true and I'm Green, Jones is dead. End of story.

However, if I help Jones, that's just a choice I make. It's neither right or wrong. For Jones, it's a wonderful choice I made because he lives, but that's all it is.

In truth, it was the right choice. Question is... why was it right?

[meangreen4321]

@Lightmane321

"...why was it right?"

That's a great question. (BTW, I think you reversed Jones and Green) Now to quote WLC, "if theism is true..." does it really make my choice more meaningful? Okay, so if I'm Jones and I give up my life for Green, why does God make any difference? Will the Christian God reward such an action? Not likely, especially if Jones doesn't have "saving" faith: Then his altruistic sacrifice is all but meaningless.

[meangreen4321]

'cont'd:

The same question arises concerning the hero firefighters and paramedics at the World Trade Centre , for example. Many courageous people risked their lives by going up the the tower to rescue stranded victims. Although this was the highest order of nobility, it has no value if our theistic god views all people as inherantly sinful and deserving of hell.

[Lightmane321]

@meangreen4321 Hi. Well, if I 'do the right thing' then it makes sense that God would reward such an action, as God clearly says in the bible that He will reward us for our 'good deeds' and punish us for our 'wrong or evil deeds'. However, 'saving' faith is an entirely different matter.

The point is that if God exists, then it makes sense that everything we do will ultimately matter. If He doesn't exist, then nothing really matters, ultimately. We're all dead. End of story.

[Lightmane321]

If I give up my life to save someone, and there is no God, then I just lost the only life I have so that someone else can have their life. How stupid is that?

[meangreen4321]

@Lightmane321

"How stupid is that?"

So stupid, it would require a spontaneous, thoughtless, selfless sacrifice of the most noble kind.

[Lightmane321]

@meangreen4321 How is it noble? If God doesn't exist, it's stupid. You can argue nobility but it's meaningless, for such nobility counts for naught (did I just say 'naught' lol)

[meangreen4321]

@Lightmane321

"...then it makes sense that god would reward such an action."

No... The Christian God doesn't reward acts of good-will unless they are specifically done for a faith purpose.

[Lightmane321]

@meangreen4321 Yes He does. The separating of the goats & the sheep. What's a faith purpose. Faith w/out works is dead. Is that what you mean? Fine. However, even the unsaved will be judged by what they do while in the body, as revelation clearly says (Rev 20:12)

God is JUST. Otherwise, good deeds mean nothing. Unfortunately, good deeds can't save you, that is, give you eternal life. They have to do with rewards & punishment, which is JUST.

[Lightmane321]

@laura

I appreciate your words. Well said.

[AnthonyBlunt]

Dr Craig just destroyed Kurtz. Ouch!

[codename4777]

Exactly.

[pro404]

I forgot to respond for a long time but those two people made some good points. He has debated some people with high credentials. I don't think Graham Oppy does live debates, but his book convinced me that there is no completely sound argument proving that either gods exist or that gods don't exist.

The way Craig presents information, it is almost impossible to convincingly respond to everything he says in the amount of time you are given, so many of the guys he debates do look unprepared.

[BillTheCat7]

"The way Craig presents information...."

How do you mean?

WLC is very specific in his presentation, and provides his opponents with a copy of his opening remarks and his contentions PRIOR to the debate.

If they can't respond convincingly, then that is probably because they have weak arguments. So don't blame him.

[pro404]

You are right that he is very specific. I haven't watched any of these debates in a few months now so I'm going off of what I remember.

Basically, he has these 5 arguments, each with about 3 subpoints, that he uses and has rehearsed perfectly. All of the arguments can be refuted, but it is essentially impossible to respond in the 8 minutes or so that people have as a rebuttal, so it gives the illusion that his arguments are irrefutable.

[BillTheCat7]

"All of the arguments can be refuted...."

Perhaps, but I haven't seen anyone do a convincing job of it. WLC is very careful not to overstate his claims/evidence.

"...so it gives the illusion that his arguments are irrefutable.

Although I think that WLC makes a great case for theism, he certainly doesn't offer "proof"; he offers "evidence" that each person can weigh, by which one can come to a conclusion.

[pro404]

If I remember correctly, this is about one of the worst performances against Craig. I watched this video a few months ago but I'm pretty sure kurtz didn't really stay on topic or actually refute his arguments.

Craig is certainly the most impressive theist debater that I have ever seen, but when these arguments are laid out in book format, it is easier to see that neither strong atheism nor theism have definitive, irrefutable arguments.

Eddie Tabash did better against him than most.

[BillTheCat7]

I watched the debate with Tabash on google (there's a link to it on Tabash's wiki article) and I think Tabash did better too.

However, the sound quality was so bad (espcially during the Q&A) that by the end of it, I was pretty irratated

[jloo222]

Kurtz knows his shit.

[luisdstripper]

You mean, he knows shit.

[jloo222]

No, I was accurate in my original statement. Thanks, though.

[luisdstripper]

Can anyone beat Craig?

[caelarent]

Craig must be getting tired of debating such mediocre thinkers. Kurtz simply didn't understand Craig's main points.

[AOPrinciple]

very much agreed.

[spiritpunker]

His main point does not sovle any moral problem, which is the central concern for Kutz. Which God? Which theism?

[HerrVonManstein]

@caelarent hahah you're an idiot! Kurtz made perfectly good points but the little maggot called craig simply cannot get that his god is irrelevant to morality-- he thinks that since his empty existence can only be filled by jesus and without him all he's got left is nihilism, then this must be true of everybodyelse !! what a pathetic little wom

[NYatheist]

To be clear, there were 3 posts in which I wrote right up to the limit of characters and they have not appeared.But it doesnt seem i'm being difficult to say so,just pointing out a problem.You may have not been aware for all I knew.

[Christianjr4]

"To be clear, there were 3 posts in which I wrote right up to the limit of characters and they have not appeared."

Well I guess they didn't appear for some reason. It must be a problem with YouTube since I didn't block or delete anything of yours (except for the "test post" which I already told you before).

[STONEWALLNOGOAL34]

Hello Christianjr4,

Thanks for the William Lane Craig videos.

God Bless

[NYatheist]

I know that comments really should all be about the sunstance of the arguments given,yet it seems quite a legit point to say:A man that argues about how people are moral while doing so in a belligerent tone,that to me is hypocritical.And yes how you speak to people falls under morality,it isnt just about the most serious violations,such as physocal violence.

[Christianjr4]

He wasn't arguing how people are moral. He was arguing that moral values can be objective if Theism is true. This isn't a debate about what is moral. I'm a little surprised at how already a few people watching this debate think so when that's not at stake here. As for Craig's tone, I think it was perfectly fine. He doesn't yell or call Kurtz names or anything. It's actually Kurtz who is more louder and rhetorical in my opinion. I think you're overdoing it on the analysis of Craig's speaking.

[NYatheist]

I cant really express all I want to say in a brief post,it seems you are blocking spam,but you are also blocking serious replies to the video which is too bad.3 efforts to respond were wasted so I give up,but thanks for making these videos available.

[Christianjr4]

Hey man, take it easy, all of your comments are posted on this video. Welcome to Youtube man, this happens to me all the time.

That said, I've removed your "test post" comment and one other comment complaining about why your posts aren't showing up since it seems your comments have shown up now.

[NYatheist]

Take it easy?I just expressed my disappointment that the text of larger posts never appeared.Should I have felt happy or nothing about that?I guess you pictured the godless maniac frothing at the mouth and clubbing baby seals as he went berserk about youtube,but no it wasnt so colorful.

[Christianjr4]

"Should I have felt happy or nothing about that?"

You implied that I was blocking your comments, hence my comment. And no, I didn't expect you to be "frothing" at the mouth in disappointment about YouTube. But I do sometimes get Atheist YouTubers who think the Theist is bent on deleting their posts (apparently because we can't handle the opposition I guess). Anyways it doesn't really matter anyways. You're allowed to post here, and I won't block or delete your comments.

[Deliratio]

Why does everyone use the spanish inquisition against theism?

Do those people think that we are impressed if they drop the name?

The spanish inquisition executed less people on an annual basis than Texas does.

Should we get rid of Texas now?

[emopeacekid]

Atheists always mention religious conflicts by why does he not mention the murder and oppression that his atheistic brethern are committing in China or North Korea? Funny how they leave that out.

[hawke123]

Not to mention Stalin, Hitler, and Mao.

[emopeacekid]

Or a small time atheist mass murderer like Pol Pot who unlike his predecessor atheists dictators who managed to kill tens of millions was only able to murder a few million.

[pro404]

emopeacekid you really ought to watch more debates before saying something so ridiculous. Nazis and communists get addressed in every single debate it seems. Watch some videos without william lane craig. He is the strongest debater on the side of religion that I have seen, but he seems to handpick his opponents. He almost always is against an old man that is unprepared for the WLC style of debating. His opponents are generally pretty weak, they usually don't even end up convincing me.

[gmn545]

"opponents are generally weak"

Paul Kurtz: Chairman of Council of Secular Humanism; co-Pres. of International Humanist & Ethical Union.

Antony Flew: 20th Century's most prominent atheist philosopher/writer

Frank Zindler: former President of American Atheists

Peter Atkins: Ph.D prof. of chemistry at Oxford; Senior member of Oxford Secular Society

he doesn't debate college students but leaders/champions of atheism/secular orgs. if THEY are 'weak', then get subordinates to step up

[regelemihai]

Exactly. He has so far debated, succesfully I might add, the biggest proponents of modern day atheism there are. He even challanged Dawkins(who, unjustly, has recently become the intellectual manifestation of atheism) and he refused to debate Craig.

Who else other than the ones gmn545 has referenced, including Dawkins, would qualify to having the higher standard?

[ubi2002]

thnx Christianjr

oh yeah i forgot to say...

thank you very much for taking the time to upload these videos of WLC, I really appreciate it

Also, I appreciate the fact you speak out in the forums of reasonable faith, you really encourage me in my faith :)

[ubi2002]

Another great debate!

Too bad it was kind of short